Satoshi’s Final Messages Leave ... - Bitcoin News

I recently recounted the history of the block size controversy for someone and thought I'd repost it here

Bitcoin development was initially led by an anonymous figure named Satoshi Nakamoto who created the project "Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System"
The project mostly languished in obscurity until in late 2010 it was revealed that Bitcoin was being used to evade the ban on Wikileaks contributions. (A good summary of Bitcoin's early history can be found here.)
Satoshi was opposed to Bitcoin being used for something as controversial as funding Wikileaks, and in one of his last messages, wrote "It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us." (link). Satoshi vanished shortly thereafter.
When Satoshi disappeared, he left the project effectively in the control of Gavin Andresen, one of the early contributors to the project. Gavin has been characterized as something of a naive academic. It wasn't long before Gavin had been approached by the CIA and agreed to visit and do a presentation. So we know that Bitcoin was on the CIA's radar by 2011.
Bitcoin-as-introduced had an Achilles heel. To prevent a specific kind of denial-of-service attack, Satoshi had added a "block size limit" to prevent flooding attacks. Satoshi's plan was to raise the limit as usage increased. Satoshi and the early Bitcoiners such as myself did not envision that the limit might itself be a vulnerability. A near-complete history of the block size limit controversy is here. I'll attempt to summarize my experience with some references.
Now it's almost 2020, and by now we've all become much more attuned to the scope of what three-letter-agencies have been doing to manipulate social media platforms. But in 2012 that was tinfoil-hat stuff across most of the internet.
In 2012, the Bitcoin subreddit was one of the key places people went for discussion about what was happening in Bitcoin. That, and the bitcointalk forum. The history of what happened has been well documented with sources in places like here and here.
The TLDR is
Throughout all of this, Blockstream steadfastly argued that it didn't control the Bitcoin Core software. Blockstream pointed to Chaincode Labs who funded several key bitcoin developers and the MIT Media Labs "Digital Currency Initiative" who funded Gavin, Cory, and Wladimir. Gavin and Wladimir in particular had the authority to merge changes into the Bitcoin Core software and as such effectively could decide what did and did not go into the software. As an ostensibly academic organization, Gavin and Wladimir etc could act with intellectual honesty and without coercion.
Except Gavin left the Digital Currency Initiative in 2017, saying that while he wasn't pressured to quit, he "didn't want to feel obligated to any person or organization."
Fast forward to 2019, and we learn the fascinating news that the MIT Media Labs were funded in part by none other than Jeffrey Epstein, who it turns out just so happened to be a staunch advocate of the Blockstream approach. So really, Bitcoin development was corralled: Blockstream was paying a bunch of devs, and Blockstream-Friendly MIT Media Labs were paying the others.
If you're still reading this, you probably wonder what it is about the Blockstream strategy that is so "bad." Aren't they just proposing a different way to solve Bitcoin's problems?
The original idea for Bitcoin was a "peer to peer cash system" - - the idea being that if Alice wants to buy something from Bob, she can just give him some tokens - - just like cash.
The new vision of bitcoin promoted by Blockstream and Core is "store of value". Under this model, you buy Bitcoins like you might speculate on gold - you buy some and you hold it. Later, if you want to purchase something, you sell your Bitcoins for some other payment method (or use an IOU against a deposit, just like a bank), and use that for purchases.
It should be apparent after a moment of thought that the original concept (Alice hands Bob some cash which Bob can then spend how he likes) is vastly more disruptive than the model in which Alice buys Bitcoin on a government-regulated exchange, holds them hoping they'll appreciate in value, and then sells them for Euros or dollars. In model one, the currency is essentially outside the domain of gatekeepers, and could completely disintermediate the entire existing financial system just like Napster for money. In model two, Bitcoin is no more disruptive than shares of a gold fund.
submitted by jessquit to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash: A Reflection on How Far We’ve Come

On August 1, Bitcoin resumed its original roadmap, scaling on-chain towards global adoption as Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash.
It’s been just 3 and a half months since Bitcoin Cash broke away from BTC in order avoid a software mutation called Segwit, and to restore progress and growth to the ecosystem.
After a recent price rally that saw us reach 0.5 BTC ($3000), the reality is setting in that an overnight ‘flippening’ scenario that some people hoped for is unlikely, and that we have a longer road ahead.
It’s really important to remember how much has been achieved in such a short time.
Let’s take a moment to reflect on how far we’ve come as a young community.
July:
August:
September:
October:
November:
This rate and scale of industry adoption is unprecedented.
With every BTC holder receiving an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash, and with the price over $1300, the rate and scale of user adoption is unprecedented.
With fast, reliable transactions and fees that are less than 1 cent, and with both BitPay & Coinbase hinting at a full Bitcoin Cash integration, the rate and scale of merchant adoption will be unprecedented.
With unprecedented industry, user and merchant adoption, it’s only a matter of time until Bitcoin Cash becomes the default medium of exchange and store of value cryptocurrency.
The old Bitcoin is back. You can feel it. It’s the resurgence of a grassroots movement not seen for years. People are putting Bitcoin Cash posters in the streets, handing out leaflets, tipping strangers a few dollars online, and asking in forums how they can contribute to the community.
Just in the last couple of days a ‘Bitcoin Cash Fund’ was established, to assist with marketing and projects. The initial goal was $200 to make a short animated advert, but over $17,000 has been donated already. All of this positivity and energy is inspiring.
While businesses are being forced to abandon BTC due to exorbitant and skyrocketing fees (upwards of $10), they’re being cheered on every day as they embrace Bitcoin Cash.
The original vision is still alive. As an early bitcoiner, I’ve never been more optimistic.
Make sure you involve yourself in the community, we’re just getting started :)
Reddit: BTC or BitcoinCash
Twitter: twitter.com/BITCOINCASH
Website: bitcoincash.org
Dev: Mailing List
Also posted on Yours: Bitcoin Cash: A Reflection on How Far We’ve Come
submitted by cryptomic to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash: A Reflection on How Far We’ve Come

On August 1, Bitcoin resumed its original roadmap, scaling on-chain towards global adoption as Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash.
It’s been just 3 and a half months since Bitcoin Cash broke away from BTC in order avoid a software mutation called Segwit, and to restore progress and growth to the ecosystem.
After a recent price rally that saw us reach 0.5 BTC ($3000), the reality is setting in that an overnight ‘flippening’ scenario that some people hoped for is unlikely, and that we have a longer road ahead.
It’s really important to remember how much has been achieved in such a short time.
Let’s take a moment to reflect on how far we’ve come as a young community.
July:
August:
September:
October:
November:
This rate and scale of industry adoption is unprecedented.
With every BTC holder receiving an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash, and with the price over $1300, the rate and scale of user adoption is unprecedented.
With fast, reliable transactions and fees that are less than 1 cent, and with both BitPay & Coinbase hinting at a full Bitcoin Cash integration, the rate and scale of merchant adoption will be unprecedented.
With unprecedented industry, user and merchant adoption, it’s only a matter of time until Bitcoin Cash becomes the default medium of exchange and store of value cryptocurrency.
The old Bitcoin is back. You can feel it. It’s the resurgence of a grassroots movement not seen for years. People are putting Bitcoin Cash posters in the streets, handing out leaflets, tipping strangers a few dollars online, and asking in forums how they can contribute to the community.
Just in the last couple of days a ‘Bitcoin Cash Fund’ was established, to assist with marketing and projects. The initial goal was $200 to make a short animated advert, but over $17,000 has been donated already. All of this positivity and energy is inspiring.
While businesses are being forced to abandon BTC due to exorbitant and skyrocketing fees (upwards of $10), they’re being cheered on every day as they embrace Bitcoin Cash.
The original vision is still alive. As an early bitcoiner, I’ve never been more optimistic.
Make sure you involve yourself in the community, we’re just getting started :)
Reddit: BTC or BitcoinCash
Twitter: twitter.com/BITCOINCASH
Website: bitcoincash.org
Dev: Mailing List
Also posted on Yours: Bitcoin Cash: A Reflection on How Far We’ve Come
submitted by cryptomic to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Why The US Government Have Likely Already Approved Bitcoin

Hey Reddit, throwaway account. I'm currently doing some research for an article I hope to have published later this month. I have a very, very rough draft at the moment and your feedback would be lovely.
The Elephant in the Room
Bitcoin is an enigma. It has renowned economists like Paul Krugman entirely perplexed whilst Silicon Valley CEO's are falling over one another to get a piece of the action. The headlines change on a daily basis: “It's A Ponzi Scheme!”, “It's Gold 2.0!” , “It's A Bubble!”, “It's The New Internet!”.
As a result of these, often conflicting articles, it's value shoots up and down like a yo-yo, swinging wildly to the slightest bit of news, good or bad.
Of course, these swings wouldn't be so exaggerated if there was a simple way to address the elephant in the room...is bitcoin legal?
Government officials have been oddly quiet in addressing this question. Aside from some rudimentary FINCEN guidelines and a vague ECB report, there's been no statement one way or another about its legal status.
Whilst I can't provide any definitive proof as to what decisions have and are being made behind closed government doors, I do think it's just possible we already have enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that the US government has already given Bitcoin the thumbs up.
Satoshi's Lament
Back in December 2010 Satoshi was involved in a heated discussion amongst Bitcoin developers on BitcoinTalk as to whether they should support Julian Assange by offering Bitcoin as a means to bypass the notorious banking blockade that had rendered Wikileaks' cash reserves impotent. Bitcoin's creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, was extremely wary that any association with Julian and Wikileaks would 'bring too much heat' to the project.
“No, don't 'bring it on'” he pleaded with his fellow developers. “The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way.” He went on to clarify. “I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy. You would not stand to get more than pocket change, and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage.”
By 'destroy us', he was likely talking about a government or corporation pulling the trigger on this nascent project. Amongst other things, Satoshi was fearful that if a nefarious entity such as a commercial bank got wind of the project, at that point in time they could have easily compromised the project by purchasing enough computing power to overrun the network (known as a 51% attack).
Despite Satoshi's protestations, Wikileaks went along and adopted Bitcoin and, it seemed Satoshi's worst fears were confirmed when, just 4 months later in April 2011, Gavin Andresen (now lead developer at the Bitcoin Foundation) announced that the C.I.A. had contacted him.
“I'm going to give a presentation about Bitcoin at the C.I.A headquarters in June at an emerging technologies conference...I accepted the invitation to speak because the fact that I was invited means Bitcoin is already on their radar, and I think it might be a good chance to talk about why I think Bitcoin will make the world a better place. I think the goals of this project are to create a better currency...I don't think any of those goals are incompatible with the goals of government.”
Satoshi disappeared shortly after.
Gavin recently spoke to the New Yorker about the event. "...I think people realized once I got invited to speak at the C.I.A. that there was no kind of hiding. They, whoever “they” are, already knew about this project." [Source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/the-future-of-Bitcoin.html]
The Silk Road Goes Live
2011 also saw the release of the notorious 'Ebay for Drugs' website, Silk Road. It received much press attention, first breaking in June via Gawker where a developer described his experience of buying LSD through the site as "Kind of like being in the future". It was clear that the Silk Road was where Bitcoin would find its first major real-world trading niche and it's not a coincidence that the BTC price, client downloads and trading volume began to skyrocket after its inception. [Source: http://gizmodo.com/5805928/the-underground-website-where-you-can-buy-any-drug-imaginable]
A week after the Gawker article, Senator Chuck Schumer called a press conference where he went on record demanding that the Silk Road be shut down “Something must be done about Silk Road...Literally, it allows buyers and users to sell illegal drugs online, including heroin, cocaine, and meth, and users sell by hiding their identities through a program that makes them virtually untraceable...[it's] the most brazen attempt to peddle drugs online that we have ever seen. It's more brazen than anything else by lightyears." he told the assembled press.
As an aside, it is worth noting that the program that “hides user identities” is TOR, developed by the US Naval Research laboratory and endorsed by Senator Hilary Clinton (Schuman's former co-Senator from the state of New York) as “an important tool for freedom of expression around the world”. Indeed, the TOR Project claims that over 80% of its funding in 2012 came directly from the U.S Government [Source: Tor Project Annual Report 2012]
The Radar Screen Lights Up
Suddenly, thanks to the Silk Road and Wikileaks, Bitcoin was now on the radar of those in public office. The question on everyones lips must have been “How do we kill Bitcoin (and by extension Wikileaks and Silkroad)?”
The C.I.A, thanks to Gavin, were now fully aware of the threat Bitcoin posed to the the current monetary system, and the illegal activities it was funding via Silk Road and other places would have done nothing but confound their concerns (or so you would think). They must have also known (just as Satoshi did) that if there was ever an opportunity to kill Bitcoin (either with regulation, criminal proceedings and/or a 51% attack) then it was back then, in 2011, with the network still in its infancy, that they should strike.
We should have expected the kind of domain seizures that we saw with the likes of Megaupload; Bitcointalk, Bitcoin.org and the Bitcoin Foundation should have been wiped off the map. They could have also moved with the banks to shutdown any accounts seen to be associated with Bitcoin trading (as we saw happen with Online Gambling websites during the Bush Regime). They could have then disrupted what remained of the Bitcoin network by performing a relatively cheap and simple 51% attack.
And yet, none of that happened... Bitcoin.org and the Bitcoin Foundation have been left to prosper and go from strength to strength. VC's, Wall Street traders and the average Joe were all left free to pump money into this burgeoning experiment without any government intervention whatsoever.
Eric, Julian and the Bilderberg Group
Back in 2010 Google dipped their toes into the world of virtual currencies, acquiring a little known company called Jambool for $70m. For awhile they ran a platform called Social Gold which was later usurped in 2011 by Facebook Credits (Facebook's attempt at a virtual currency). This was phased out in mid-2012. Techcrunch cites that this was likely due to the problems Facebook had encountered in educating the public about using another form of currency, and goes on to speculate that by offering a centralised means of exchange, Facebook may have also faced increasing legal and regulatory scrutiny.
In June 2011, Julian Assange met Eric Schmidt online in a secret 5 hour chat in which they discussed - amongst other things - Bitcoin. The full transcript - which was leaked last month - is available here: http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt
Also in attendance at the meeting was Jared Cohen, a former Secretary of State advisor to Hillary Clinton, Scott Malcomson, Director of Speechwriting for Ambassador Susan Rice at the US State Department and current Communications Director of the International Crisis Group, and Lisa Shields, Vice President of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Here's an excerpt:
JA: ...there’s also a very nice little paper that I’ve seen in relation to Bitcoin, that… you know about Bitcoin?
ES: No.
JA: Okay, Bitcoin is something that evolved out of the cypherpunks a couple of years ago, and it is an alternative… it is a stateless currency.

JA: And very important, actually. It has a few problems. But its innovations exceed its problems. Now there has been innovations along these lines in many different paths of digital currencies, anonymous, untraceable etc. People have been experimenting with over the past 20 years. The Bitcoin actually has the balance and incentives right, and that is why it is starting to take off. The different combination of these things. No central nodes. It is all point to point. One does not need to trust any central mint….
...
ES: That's very interesting
So, now we know Bitcoin was on the radar of the C.I.A, various politicians and, thanks to Julian, the CEO of Google was now beginning to get an inkling as to its disruptive potential.
Just 13 days prior to the Assange meet, Eric had attended the annual meeting of the notoriously secretive Bilderberg Group in St. Moritz, Switzerland and went on to attend the meet again in June 2012.
Topics of discussion included:
Some of the 2011/12 attendees included:
Heads of Barclays Bank, AXXA, HSBC and the President of The World Bank Group were also in attendance.
[Source: http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php]
To see so many tech luminaries in attendance at Bilderberg is indicative of the kind of power and respect that geeks and hackers now command in shaping the world stage. Just how many high-level decisions are being influenced by this new technorati is hard to say, but in a rapidly changing world where technology is moving faster than the old rules remain relevant, we are seeing that people, united through technology on a global scale – not governments – are dictating the speed of change.
Joining The Dots
None of this means that bitcoins ride is going to be friction-free - just because Eric Schmidt is open to the idea of bitcoin displacing traditional currencies (as he and Jared Cohen alluded to in a recent CNBC interview), does not mean that Douglas Flint (Group Chairman, HSBC) is going to be equally enthused.
However, I do think that if we join up all the dots the general conclusion that we can draw looks overwhelmingly positive for the future of bitcoin. That so many powerful actors within the intelligence community, technology industry and government have let bitcoin survive this long is almost an endorsement itself.
It suggests to me that any nefarious corporations that attempt to shutdown bitcoin because of a perceived threat to their business model, will be met by those same powerful actors coming together to ensure they will have a very tough fight on their hands.
Indeed, in the years to come, we may well see Hilary Clinton coming out to trumpet bitcoin as “an important tool for freedom of expression around the world” in much the same way she praised the TOR project.
And perhaps, ultimately, we will discover that bitcoin, like TOR, was also developed by the US Naval Research Laboratory.
Though I prefer to think it was just some lone genius sitting in his attic who accidentally changed the world.
Whatever may be the case, it seems that - for now at least - our governments have handed their people a rare gift – the freedom to shape their own future.
It's up to us to try not to screw that up.
submitted by JuliusPragatan to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The first real-world Bitcoin transaction was 10,000 BTC for 2 pizzas. In today's value, 10,000 BTC is worth $194,943,763.00 USD.

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot)
Bitcoin did away with the third party by publicly distributing the ledger, what Nakamoto called the "Block chain." Users willing to devote CPU power to running a special piece of software would be called miners and would form a network to maintain the block chain collectively.
Not only did bitcoin's public ledger seem to protect against fraud, but the predetermined release of the digital currency kept the bitcoin money supply growing at a predictable rate, immune to printing-press-happy central bankers and Weimar Republic-style hyperinflation.
Gavin Andresen, a coder in New England, bought 10,000 bitcoins for $50 and created a site called the Bitcoin Faucet, where he gave them away for the hell of it.
Laszlo Hanyecz, a Florida programmer, conducted what bitcoiners think of as the first real-world bitcoin transaction, paying 10,000 bitcoins to get two pizzas delivered from Papa John's.
On December 5, 2010, after bitcoiners started to call for Wikileaks to accept bitcoin donations, the normally terse and all-business Nakamoto weighed in with uncharacteristic vehemence.
"The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way. I make this appeal to Wikileaks not to try to use bitcoin. Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy. You would not stand to get more than pocket change, and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage."
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: bitcoin#1 Nakamoto#2 call#3 digital#4 currency#5
Post found in /Bitcoin and /BitcoinAll.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

Why bitcoin will never have to worry about being quashed by big banks or sidelined by a competing crypto currency.

It's been a long running debate: Is bitcoin the defacto crypto currency? What's to stop someone else launching supermegabitcoin and stealing its crown? Why, if it's so great can't a bank come along and use it's marketing might to do the same thing?
In this post I'm going to attempt to answer these questions once and for all so that we can all leave here without a shred of doubt that bitcoin will almost certainly be the King of Cryptos for time immemorial.
I say almost certainly, because I am working on the assumptions that nothing disastrous happens to the protocol itself and that humans don't blow themselves up before it gets a chance to take off.
First, let's rewind. Back in 2011 Gavin Andresen was asked by the CIA to visit their headquarters and give a presentation on bitcoin. Present at the meeting alongside the CIA were: PayPal, Facebook Payments, M-Pesa, Heartland Payment Systems, and the Federal Reserve.
Source: http://www.bitcointrading.com/forum/talk-bitcoin/gavin-andresen-cia-visit-presentation-(june-20th-2011)-(pdf)/
It is perhaps no coincidence that just prior to the meeting Wikileaks had just started accepting bitcoin which garnered much mainstream media attention. The decision to support Wikileaks came after a long-running discussion on bitcointalk that had involved Satoshi himself (who was vehemently against supporting Julian at such an early stage in the development of bitcoin). Satoshi was outvoted and seemingly his worst fears confirmed when shortly after the CIA got in touch. Satoshi left shortly after Gavin announced he would be attending the CIA meet.
So here's what we can ascertain from this: bitcoin is giving oxygen to an organisation that has had all other payment methods frozen by the government and has been labelled a threat to national security. In tandem with this, it is also being used to fuel the world's largest online drug marketplace (Silk Road)... At this stage you would have expected two things to happen:
  1. The CIA moves fast to make any bitcoin related transaction illegal, blocking at the banking level (as they did with online gambling).
  2. The FED, Paypal or any number of the other reps present at the meeting lift the bitcoin code and implement some proprietary version of the tech that can be controlled and regulated. They launch, trumpeting it as the world's most advanced, legal, government backed crypto currency and AmeriGovoCoinPal becomes the new reserve currency backed by all the major banks, who can offer the usual payment protection etc.
Except. That didn't happen. Nothing happened. Bitcoin was left to quietly permeate it's way through the collective consciousness of the Geek hive until it began to grow at an almost exponential rate. Just taking a look at the Github repository and watching the codebase contributors expand from back when it was just Mike Hearn and Satoshi himself to what it is today is truly mind blowing.
So, how (and why) was this allowed to happen when there were so many big players at the CIA meet (including the FED itself?).
The answer is the same as you would give to the question "Why is Linux the most powerful operating system in the world?"
Because bitcoin, like linux, is open source. There is a reason the International Space Station switched to Linux, just as there is a reason so many geeks wet their collective pants when they realised what bitcoin was capable of; Put quite simply, bitcoin cannot be stopped and will always prove to be the most powerful crypto in the world because of it's open nature.
The only thing that threatens this are external events such as the Foundation making too many concessions to heavy handed regulators. But even then, the bitcoin community always has the nuclear option: forking a new version of the protocol and moving away from any perceived compromises.
"Open solutions enable the ecosystem to discover the optimal value of the solution, whereas less open systems are at the mercy of their creator having guessed at the optimal solution in the first place." - Dick Costello (co-founder of FeedBurn)
But wait. We've not even got started yet. Let's rewind right back to April 2009 when the bitcoin protocol had just 2 developers: Satoshi and Google security engineer Mike Hearn. Bitcoin was but a mere twinkle in Gavin's eye back then.
But Mike was on it. In fact, he was so taken with Satoshi's vision that he chose to dedicate his Google 20% time to the project and what he quickly realised was that bitcoin wasn't just a lovely platform for cheap monetary exchange, but...a...whole...lot...more.
Here's what Satoshi had to say about the architecture of bitcoin that Mike quickly picked up on.
"The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago. Escrow transactions, bonded security contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature etc...If bitcoin catches on in a big way these are things we will want to explore in the future, but they all had to be designed at the beginning to make sure they would be possible later."
As Mike explains here, the bitcoin protocol is FULL of features that currently lie dormant. These features are so ground-breaking, so mind-bogglingly game changing it is, for once, not a cliche to say that bitcoin represents a huge paradigm shift that will permeate every level of society and business. Every business model that relies on middle-men; from banking to real estate, from car loans to health insurance and contract law is going to go out of business unless they rapidly adapt to the forthcoming changes. In exactly the same way MP3s and P2P have driven a nail in the coffins of record industry middle-men so too will bitcoin finish any model of business that can be more elegantly dealt with by the crowd and a rock-solid mathematical algorithm.
And it doesn't even stop there, that's just short-term stuff. The next decade is going to see sooo many innovations built around blockchain and micropayment technology that the current world we are living in is going to look like something from the flintstones.
"Oh Fred, do you remember when we used to have to WALK up to parking meters and actually pay physical coins for the privilege of parking our cars?"
"Yes" Laughs Fred, "And do your remember when they used to actually pay men dressed in silly faux policemen outfits to walk up and down all day in a job they hated, just so they could check we had paid at the meter?"
"Don't forget Fred, Barney had that terrible job of having to empty all those worthless coins out of the meters and that he died on his way home - completely needlessly because some punk thought those old nickels and dimes were worth something."
"To think, only 10 years later there would be automated flying ambulances that owned themselves and his life would have been saved. Poor Barney. Google Car: Home Please"
Back In 2013...
It is not histrionic to assert that we will - in a very short space of time - look back on the current system in the same way we shiver with disbelief that there was an era not that long ago when bank clerks used to tally all our life savings in hand written ledgers.
It is of course very difficult to think ahead and predict future changes, and yet maverick technologists like Ray Kurzweil have made a fine living out of doing just that. Of course there are those that have not faired quite as well (Krugman. We are disappoint).
So why bitcoin and nothing else?
Just as nothing could stop the rise of Linux due to it's legion of nerdtastic programmers who work on it day in day out for the pure love of what they do, there is nothing that can even come close to emulating that goodwill (no matter how much money is spent on drones hired by banks or other agencies).
The global legion of talented programmers, designers, enrepreneurs, business gurus, financial experts and lobbyists (yes, lobbyists) who have already made a collective decision to dedicate their time and energy to building bitcoin into what is and what it is yet to become is an unstoppable force.
So take the red pill and buckle your seatbelt Dorothy, because that is the power of love, and it cannot be bought, sold or compromised.
submitted by smeggletoot to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

When this post is (20 minutes less) than two hours old, Gavin Andreson will be in a live debate - "Can we govern ourselves with digital technology?" (7pm GMT)

Here's the link, it will work when this post is two hours old: http://youtu.be/riI51xO3BsM
The debate includes: - Birgitta Jonsdottir (Wikileaks activist and Icelandic MP) - Gavin Andresen (Lead developer of Bitcoin) - Naomi Colvin (Occupy Movement) - Mark Johnson (The Economist) - Associate Professor John Parkinson
Leave your questions on the YouTube channel and we'll try and present them to the panel. Or tweet/G+ #DigiGov. Would be great to have you all along for the debate.
Would also be great if you gave us a sub!
Thanks guys, hope to see you there.
Phil
submitted by phillyharper to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

TIL the first real-world Bitcoin transaction was 10,000 BTC for 2 pizzas. In today's value, 10,000 BTC is worth $57 million USD.

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot)
Not only did bitcoin's public ledger seem to protect against fraud, but the predetermined release of the digital currency kept the bitcoin money supply growing at a predictable rate, immune to printing-press-happy central bankers and Weimar Republic-style hyperinflation.
Gavin Andresen, a coder in New England, bought 10,000 bitcoins for $50 and created a site called the Bitcoin Faucet, where he gave them away for the hell of it.
Laszlo Hanyecz, a Florida programmer, conducted what bitcoiners think of as the first real-world bitcoin transaction, paying 10,000 bitcoins to get two pizzas delivered from Papa John's.
On December 5, 2010, after bitcoiners started to call for Wikileaks to accept bitcoin donations, the normally terse and all-business Nakamoto weighed in with uncharacteristic vehemence.
While bitcoin is "The most exciting technology since the Internet," he says, eBay is "a giant bloodsucking corporation" and free speech "a popular myth." He is similarly excitable when predicting the future of bitcoin.
A young bitcoiner, The Real Plato, brought into the new millennium by video-blogging a cross-country car trip during which he spent only bitcoins.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: bitcoin#1 currency#2 Nakamoto#3 mine#4 call#5
Post found in /todayilearned, /Bitcoin, /BitcoinAll and /Bitcoin.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2016-11-05 to 2016-12-04 23:06 PDT

Period: 29.76 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 26468
Rate (per day) 33.61 875.03
Unique Redditors 395 1784
Combined Score 46892 99911

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 2360 points, 29 submissions: ydtm
    1. u/jessquit to u/nullc "You're so fucking shameless, devoting your career to crippling one of the most disruptive inventions since the Internet to please your investment team. Watching you go down in flames will be one of the great moments in computer science. Your legacy will be a monument of shame" (214 points, 40 comments)
    2. Suggestion for new terminology. Instead of saying "small blocks" vs "big blocks", we could say: "centrally planned blocksize" vs "market-based blocksize". This will make it clear that some solutions are based on markets and economics, and other solutions are based on central planning. (195 points, 64 comments)
    3. Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both. (180 points, 35 comments)
    4. Letting FEES float without letting BLOCKSIZES float is NOT a "market". A market has 2 sides: One side provides a product/service (blockspace), the other side pays fees/money (BTC). An "efficient market" is when players compete and evolve on BOTH sides, approaching an ideal FEE/BLOCKSIZE EQUILIBRIUM. (153 points, 42 comments)
    5. Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them? (149 points, 66 comments)
    6. "Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt (124 points, 80 comments)
    7. Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream. (119 points, 182 comments)
    8. u/Luke-Jr: "The best available here is currently 5Mb down + 512k up DSL." // u/TruthReasonOrLies: "You seem to want to hold back the network development and growth to support those who are the least likely to run full nodes or mining." (114 points, 45 comments)
    9. The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime (90 points, 41 comments)
    10. Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life. (88 points, 26 comments)
  2. 2261 points, 29 submissions: blockologist
    1. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: bitcoin is an echo chamber and should be boycotted (371 points, 69 comments)
    2. Gavin Andersen: Eitheor : ignore! (205 points, 41 comments)
    3. Coinbase - Protecting Customer Privacy: "we will oppose the government’s petition in court" (201 points, 28 comments)
    4. LOL u/peoplma predicted the r\Bitcoin front page perfectly nearly a year ago (178 points, 22 comments)
    5. David Jerry on Twitter: Want real evidence of echo chamber censorship on Bitcoin? @gavinandresen posted identical opposite tweets btc has both, bitcoin only 1 (174 points, 45 comments)
    6. Bitcoin Scaling Solution Segwit a “Bait and Switch”, says Roger Ver (120 points, 110 comments)
    7. Holy cow! ViaBTC raised over 90 btc in less than 24hrs for their Bitcoin Unlimited cloud mining program (104 points, 40 comments)
    8. "You don't have to wear a tin-foil hat to see that core has been pushing for some things which change the fundamental economic policies of bitcoin; changes which a substantial portion of the community is against." - u/jratcliff63367 (103 points, 82 comments)
    9. Brian Hoffman on Twitter: The fact that the Bitcoin community argues so vehemently that there is no possible alternative to the Core path shows their shortsightedness (88 points, 6 comments)
    10. Andrew Lee (Purse.io CEO) on Twitter: Multiple compatible implementations will Make Bitcoin Great Again (83 points, 16 comments)
  3. 2176 points, 12 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. With the public spotlight on Reddit censorship, now would be the perfect time to let the rest of Reddit know about the censorship on /bitcoin (625 points, 125 comments)
    2. /btc exclusive: Photos of a bitcoin mining operation in rural China (398 points, 101 comments)
    3. BU lead developer Andrew Stone: A Short Tour of Bitcoin Core (232 points, 144 comments)
    4. "The Community Has Spoken" (166 points, 65 comments)
    5. BashCo explains that if you want to discuss non-Core software on /Bitcoin, you must submit a BIP, get a BIP number, wait for peer review, modify BIP, more peer review, start serious coding, start testing, more peer review... then you may discuss it once it is "deemed safe." (163 points, 133 comments)
    6. "I'm not aware of any problem." -Greg Maxwell (158 points, 64 comments)
    7. Yet another example of censorship in /bitcoin. It is no longer possible to believe that the discussion in that subreddit is in any way honest or representative of community opinion. (123 points, 56 comments)
    8. "Segwit Blockers" is a pejorative term which automatically shifts debate to imply that one side is correct and the other is blocking progress. (120 points, 140 comments)
    9. Another post censored from /bitcoin. I'd like to know which rules were broken or what made my comment unacceptable. (71 points, 26 comments)
    10. spez: "We are taking a more aggressive stance against toxic users and poorly behaving communities." -- I wonder if this will apply to Theymos and /bitcoin? (57 points, 20 comments)
  4. 1861 points, 34 submissions: Egon_1
    1. It would be incredibly unfortunate if organic growth in Bitcoin gets dismissed as spam attacks because of suspicion about people's agendas. (146 points, 33 comments)
    2. Is it just me or is anyone else noticing that some of the Core developers are saying 'Bitcoin's creator' instead of saying Satoshi? (139 points, 67 comments)
    3. "It's not really "segwit blockers", it's more "segwit ignorers". The difference is one of not seeing Core as some Reference Code." (135 points, 32 comments)
    4. "Upcoming AMA with Bitcoin Unlimited devs in Chinese Community 8BTC, Nov 19 at 8-10AM Beijing Time" (127 points, 9 comments)
    5. So discussing block size increase is too controversial for /bitcoin but suggesting algorithm change is not? • /Bitcoin (125 points, 76 comments)
    6. "The Bitcoin Unlimited implementation excludes RBF as BU supports zero-confirmation use-cases inherent to peer-to-peer cash." (119 points, 101 comments)
    7. ... Segwit as a SF tries to make non-segwit txs more expensive relative to segwit txs to 'discourage' their use (100 points, 86 comments)
    8. Sergio."Also @Blockstream hid the fact they had applied for the patent. That's misleading (deceptive?). DPL was necessary to protect reputation(1/2)" (93 points, 42 comments)
    9. "Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted." (88 points, 43 comments)
    10. If you're working on BTC remittances or micropayments under the current regime of increasing fees, you're going to have a bad time. (88 points, 28 comments)
  5. 1791 points, 25 submissions: realistbtc
    1. the systematic censorship policy of r\bitcoin is one of the clearest proof of the technical inferiority of blockstream core prescribed solutions : if they were just better , there would be no need for such policy . (219 points, 74 comments)
    2. Mycelium.com on Twitter - ' We say one thing, we lose half our customers. We say another thing, we lose the other half. Thanks bitcoin censorship that isn't a problem! ' (202 points, 134 comments)
    3. Gavin Andresen on twitter : " Any studies on company success versus amount of posts from C-level execs on Reddit or Twitter?" - " My intuition is 'too much' is bad-- sign of distracted leadership, especially for CTO " (186 points, 70 comments)
    4. just so you know , now nullc is calling jtoomim a scammer : character assassination is a standard operational mode of the guys from blockstream . (129 points, 54 comments)
    5. luke-jr acknowledge that block latency isn't a problem anymore : " block latency has been a big issue in the past as well, but presumably compact/xthin blocks has solved it " - we have to thanks the BU team for that , that in turn pressed blockstream core to finally do something too (116 points, 32 comments)
    6. A glimpse into the mind of greg maxwell : " .... since you're never going to think highly of me again I can continue to whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking mass of people. " (wikipedia history , jan 2006 ) (83 points, 67 comments)
    7. after days , segwit signaling is oscillating between 15-25% . that's a far cry from what blockstream core was expecting . if they were ready to label a 10% resistance ' blockers' , now they will have to come to terms with the fact that thir proposal is simply not good enough . (79 points, 33 comments)
    8. slush on Twitter : ' Just ask BU devs to stop blocking Segwit.' - please stop mining at slush and buying trezors - slush has fallen to the blockstream cartel dark side (78 points, 256 comments)
    9. Jihan Wu on Twitter : " BTCC management team killed its no.1 position by raising fees while everyone wanted to trade in 2013Q4. Similar stupid mindset, right? " (78 points, 9 comments)
    10. Jihan Wu on Twitter : " My partner doesn't have pw of my Twitter to del twits, so Samson Joker pls focus on trolling and destroying BTCC, and not pm him any more. " (72 points, 18 comments)
  6. 1375 points, 17 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. PSA: Even CEOs of major Bitcoin companies are unaware of the suppression of discussion by Theymos and supported by Core supporters. (209 points, 97 comments)
    2. When /bitcoin started the censorship, they prevented honest discussion, split the community, and dramatically slowed down Bitcoin's progress (167 points, 125 comments)
    3. The Bitcoin.com Pool now has over 40 Peta hashes, and 2% of the global hash rate. Some users are reporting being paid as much as 8.5% more bitcoin than other pools. (132 points, 30 comments)
    4. The Bitcoin.com pool has mined over 100 blocks, and nearly 1,500 BTC so far. Looking to come out of closed beta soon. (132 points, 68 comments)
    5. /Bitcoin user caught misrepresenting and lying to attack on chain scaling supporters again (115 points, 97 comments)
    6. As Bitcoin user & enthusiast, I'd be grateful to Core, @Blockstream, and all miners if they would just stick to Satoshi's original plan. Pls RT (92 points, 126 comments)
    7. An interview with Bitcoin Unlimited Developer Andrew Stone (86 points, 24 comments)
    8. Coming very soon: More Cash for your Hash (79 points, 26 comments)
    9. The free On Chain Scaling conference starts today at 17:00 GMT! (78 points, 74 comments)
    10. An example of how a Core supporter intentionally misrepresents the truth to support his position. (71 points, 95 comments)
  7. 1239 points, 46 submissions: chinawat
    1. Why against SegWit and Core? Jiang Zhuo’er, who invested millions in mining, gives his answers. • x-post from /Bitcoin (151 points, 133 comments)
    2. "It is too early to talk about the tx fee market before Bitcoin is accepted across the world." - ViaBTC on Twitter (124 points, 13 comments)
    3. /HailCorporate gets wind of /Bitcoin censorship, theymos attempts to justify and downplay his behavior (92 points, 10 comments)
    4. Here we go again. My mempool is just exceed 33k. Prepare for transaction delay posts. (69 points, 48 comments)
    5. jstolfi is at it with the SEC again (48 points, 125 comments)
    6. New York is Gradually Losing its Shot at Becoming a Global Bitcoin Hub (45 points, 8 comments)
    7. /Bitcoin SegWit narrative shifting -- regulars now claiming signaling and activation was always expected to be slow (43 points, 35 comments)
    8. "There's Chaos Everywhere" - Indians Angry As ATMs Run Dry After Cash Ban (39 points, 11 comments)
    9. ViaBTC's Transaction Accelerator Test Results • x-post from /Bitcoin (39 points, 12 comments)
    10. Wikileaks latest insurance files don't match hashes (x-post from /crypto) (38 points, 1 comment)
  8. 1115 points, 12 submissions: BiggerBlocksPlease
    1. Another successful hard fork by Ethereum occurred today. Protocol upgrades are possible. Don't listen to lies from entrenched interests that say otherwise. (202 points, 78 comments)
    2. I think if it comes down to it, Core would rather remain in control, even if it means introducing a small blocksize increase, as opposed to losing control entirely. We should not lose sight of our larger goals no matter what carrots they throw our way: We need a new, un-corrupt dev team. (177 points, 65 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Core Devs can't just say the price of Bitcoin should be stuck at $100 per coin. The market decides. Just like Core shouldn't say the size of a block is stuck at 1MB. The market should decide! Take centrally planned actors OUT of the equation. This is Bitcoin-- Not the Federal Reserve. (145 points, 39 comments)
    4. Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows. (120 points, 34 comments)
    5. Miner Jiang Zhou'er: "I can conclude with great confidence: SegWit will never ever be activated. Even in 75% or 51% scenarios it will not be alive. ..some people are destined to be nailed up on the pillar of humiliation." (95 points, 63 comments)
    6. We need more exclusive content for /btc with watermarks stating against censorship in /bitcoin. The new content will be effective in spreading the word! (79 points, 32 comments)
    7. No one (except the market) knows what the price of Bitcoin should be, just like no one (except the market) knows what the size of blocks should be. Bitcoin Unlimited allows a market-decided blocksize. Bitcoin Core allows a centrally planned blocksize. (74 points, 20 comments)
    8. MYTH: "Bitcoin Unlimited isn't meant for mining." -- FACT: ViaBTC has been mining with BU and has the best performance of ALL pools. [see link inside] (71 points, 61 comments)
    9. It is likely a Core-affiliated extremist will attack pools mining Bitcoin Unlimited blocks. I recommend Bitcoin.com Pool goes live ASAP, with over 10% hashrate, so we have multiple pools for redundancy. 10-12% hashrate is not enough in the face of attackers who try to artificially activate Segwit. (64 points, 52 comments)
    10. Theymos: "I know how moderation affects people" ... "This is improved by the simultaneous action on bitcointalk.org, bitcoin.it and bitcoin.org" (2015) (59 points, 43 comments)
  9. 1111 points, 52 submissions: knight222
    1. ViaBTC: "I think the most important thing is BU has the support of Bitmain and F2pool, they have said privately they will switch to BU, I am very much looking forward to the arrival of that day." (86 points, 68 comments)
    2. /BTC Enthusiasts Want The /Bitcoin Moderators Gone Once And For All (77 points, 9 comments)
    3. Total Bitcoin Transaction Volume Surpassed US$100bn in September (53 points, 17 comments)
    4. Fedora Receives Its Own Electrum Bitcoin Wallet Client (50 points, 4 comments)
    5. IRS Demands Records of 4.8 Million Bitcoin Users over 3 Alleged Tax Dodgers (43 points, 4 comments)
    6. Several Mycelium Users Report Unusually High Bitcoin Transaction Fees (40 points, 38 comments)
    7. Overstock Reveals Latest Effort Within the Bitcoin Space (40 points, 2 comments)
    8. EY Switzerland, World Top Four Accounting Firm, to Accept Bitcoin (40 points, 2 comments)
    9. Chinese dominance in the blockchain space now includes startup investments (36 points, 0 comments)
    10. Will Bitcoin Become the new "Swiss Bank Account"? (31 points, 10 comments)
  10. 939 points, 5 submissions: JohnBlocke
    1. John Blocke: A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /Bitcoin (461 points, 251 comments)
    2. Peter Todd in 2013: "If I were the US Government and had co-opted the "core" Bitcoin dev team, you know what I'd do?..." (158 points, 85 comments)
    3. UPDATE: Coindesk & Bitcoin Magazine still have not mentioned the $1.2 million donated by members of the Bitcoin industry to fund protocol development. What is their agenda? (118 points, 23 comments)
    4. John Blocke: Echo Chambers (116 points, 53 comments)
    5. Bitcoin companies pledge to donate $1.2M USD to protocol development, and not a peep from the bitcoin media? (86 points, 21 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. Noosterdam (3181 points, 564 comments)
  2. H0dlr (2189 points, 354 comments)
  3. ViaBTC (1994 points, 65 comments)
  4. seweso (1887 points, 377 comments)
  5. todu (1883 points, 365 comments)
  6. Helvetian616 (1662 points, 265 comments)
  7. Ant-n (1554 points, 453 comments)
  8. dskloet (1521 points, 230 comments)
  9. MemoryDealers (1500 points, 104 comments)
  10. Egon_1 (1475 points, 134 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. With the public spotlight on Reddit censorship, now would be the perfect time to let the rest of Reddit know about the censorship on /bitcoin by BeijingBitcoins (625 points, 125 comments)
  2. John Blocke: A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /Bitcoin by JohnBlocke (461 points, 251 comments)
  3. /btc exclusive: Photos of a bitcoin mining operation in rural China by BeijingBitcoins (398 points, 101 comments)
  4. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: "I'm happy to see Bitcoin Unlimited gaining popularity, and hope their decentralized market-based approach gets adopted." by sandakersmann (376 points, 184 comments)
  5. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: bitcoin is an echo chamber and should be boycotted by blockologist (371 points, 69 comments)
  6. I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything! by ViaBTC (337 points, 858 comments)
  7. Bitcoin Classic is Back! by ThomasZander (279 points, 92 comments)
  8. Problem? No problems here. by mohrt (246 points, 105 comments)
  9. nullc is actively trying to delete Satoshi from history. First he assigned all satoshi commits on github to himself, then he wanted to get rid of the whitepaper as it is and now notice how he never says "Satoshi", he says "Bitcoin's Creator". by blockstreamcoin (243 points, 243 comments)
  10. Censorship test from Gavin: post two positive things one about BU and another about SW, and see what happens by chakrop (240 points, 69 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 206 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  2. 118 points: solex1's comment in Gavin Andresen on Twitter: "I'm happy to see Bitcoin Unlimited gaining popularity, and hope their decentralized market-based approach gets adopted."
  3. 110 points: viners's comment in "It cannot be permitted to work." nullc
  4. 97 points: jstolfi's comment in Is LN vaporware and if not why do posters keep saying it is? (x-post from bitcoin)
  5. 95 points: satoshis_sockpuppet's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  6. 91 points: dskloet's comment in Cannot wait for Core trolls who don't understand queue theory to lose it. Grab your popcorn as we finally approach 100% utilization and an ever increasing backlog.
  7. 90 points: BitcoinXio's comment in I love Bitcoin
  8. 86 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  9. 85 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  10. 82 points: Noosterdam's comment in John Blocke: A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /Bitcoin
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats (Donate)
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

When this post is two hours, Birgitta Jonsdottir from Wikileaks will be in a live debate on YouTube - "Can we govern ourselves with digital technology?" (7pm GMT)

Here's the link, it will go live when this post is (just less than) two hours old:
http://youtu.be/riI51xO3BsM
The debate includes: - Birgitta Jonsdottir (Wikileaks activist and Icelandic MP) - Gavin Andresen (Lead developer of Bitcoin) - Naomi Colvin (Occupy Movement) - Mark Johnson (The Economist) - Associate Professor John Parkinson
Leave your questions on the YouTube channel and we'll try and present them to the panel. Or tweet #digigov. Would be great to have you all along for the debate.
Would also be great if you gave us a sub! Thanks guys, hope to see you there.
submitted by phillyharper to WikiLeaks [link] [comments]

Triangulation 103: Gavin Andresen - YouTube Gavin Andresen about Bitcoin - YouTube Bitcoin or BTC and Satoshi Nakamoto 9000% Gain till this day 2020. Story behind of Cryptocurrency. How Does BitCoin Work Gavin Andresen: How I Got Started in Bitcoins

Gavin Andresen’s Faucet Ranks #1 With 19,922 BTC Received. One of the most redeeming qualities of the bitcoin community is their generosity. For every scammer trying to take advantage of the blockchain’s anonymity, there are multiple others giving transparently to a cause in which they believe. From the original Wikileaks campaign, which arguably put bitcoin on the map, to the current Free ... Gavin Andresen est le directeur scientifique de la Fondation Bitcoin, un groupe qui a pour objectif d’accompagner le développement de bitcoin, d’établir de nouvelles façons de traiter les transactions et d’administrer le site bitcoin.org.. En tant que leader, Gavin Andresen agit principalement en qualité d’arbitre de la communauté et coordonne les améliorations du logiciel ... Im September 2010 wurde im Bitcointalk-Forum eine Diskussion über ein hypothetisches System namens BitDNS und Generalizing Bitcoin gestartet, das auf einem Vortrag im IRC am 14. November 2010 basiert. Gavin Andresen und Satoshi Nakamoto nahmen an der Diskussion im Bitcointalk-Forum teil und unterstützten die Idee von BitDNS . Eine Belohnung für die Implementierung von BitDNS wurde im ... Satoshi’s final correspondence, from an April 26, 2011 email to Gavin Andresen, has given rise to another theory as to why he abruptly left. He wrote: He wrote: WikiLeaks’ Bitcoin contribution address was released after the currency’s initially significant boom, on June 14, 2011. Interestingly, the besieged company opened the floodgates for bitcoin contributions simply 2 months after Satoshi’s last ever correspondence – an e-mail to partner Gavin Andresen. The rest, as they state, is history: Wikileaks got 10s of countless dollars in bitcoin ...

[index] [47370] [39884] [20676] [26805] [41654] [19731] [13785] [34694] [39000] [7831]

Triangulation 103: Gavin Andresen - YouTube

These facts range from Satoshi’s original Bitcoin code to core Developer Gavin Andresen going to the CIA to unveil Bitcoin. Each Bitcoin fact get more shocking & unbelievable than the next. Are ... Bitcoin client developer Gavin Andresen talks about how he got started in bitcoin. Recorded at the 2011 Bitcoin Conference in New York City Gavin Andresen Drops A New Concept On Github for Bitcoin CashOn January 2 one of the most well-known developers for the original bitcoin protocol, Gavin Andr... MLTalks: Bitcoin Developers Gavin Andresen, Cory Fields, and Wladimir van der Laan - Duration: 1:31:13. MIT Media Lab 8,689 views Gavin Andresen, Principal of the BitCoin Virtual Currency Project, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about BitCoin, an innovative attempt to create a decentralized electronic currency.

#